[blinachka]

Check out this article from 10/3. The details are in it and this is one reason I think Miller may be in deep you-know-what.

The Plame Truth About Judith Miller!

By John H. Hinderaker

Weekly Standard | October 3, 2005

[Dolphy]

Interesting article. I would like to believe that Fitzgerald has more going on (in an investigation that has taken him nearly 2 years) than figuring out if Plame's name was leaked by the White House. At the end of the day it seems all we know is what the various journalists that have been subpoenaed provide. That they ricochet guilt from Rove to Libby at lightning pace tells me they are as clueless as the rest.

[Steve_Seattle]

The Hinderaker article is very interesting. The easiest part to agree with is that Miller's attorney's version of why she finally agreed to testify does not stand up to scrutiny. But I am less sure that this has anything to do with the Islamic charity case. I think it equally possible that Miller is still trying to conceal another source in the Plame case, and that revealing this source would be very embarrassing either to the source or to Miller herself.

Possibly Fitzgerald is thinking that he doesn't necessarily need to know who the other source is, merely that the source exists, in order to determine that neither Rove nor Libby can be singled out as culpable leakers in this case. Fitzgerald may conclude that Plame's identity was so widely known among her friends and associates prior to the Novak article, that it would be both impossible and unfair to attach criminal culpability to anyone for passing on that information.